SC reviews ED’s authority to file Writs

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a "juristic person" entitled to file writ petitions against State governments under Article 226.

• ED filed for mandamus and certiorari to challenge the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) set up by Kerala in the gold smuggling case (2022).
• Writ Petition – Filed before the Supreme Court (Article 32) or High Court (Article 226) when a Fundamental Right or other legal right is violated.
• Purpose – The ED is a Union statutory agency.
• It seeks to review State actions affecting its statutory enforcement powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
• Issue – Whether the ED is a juristic person entitled to maintain a writ petition.
• States (Kerala and Tamil Nadu) argue that it is merely a department of the Union government and not a juristic person or body corporate capable of suing or being sued.
• It is argued that the agency’s only remedy lay under Article 131 of the Constitution.
  • Concern - Allowing ED to file writs could undermine federal balance and enable overreach.
• Key aspects – Kerala High Court - ED is a statutory body, not just a Union department.
• High Court rejected the State's argument that ED cannot sue.
• The Supreme Court admitted appeals by Kerala and Tamil Nadu to clarify the law.
• Implications – Determines whether central investigative agencies can file writs against States.
• Impacts the federal balance between the Centre and States.
• Affects ED’s autonomy and operational reach.
• Need – Clarify whether ED is a juristic person.
• Avoid conflict of jurisdiction between High Courts and Supreme Court.
• Ensure legal consistency for Union agencies filing writs.

References

1. TH | ED & writ petitions
2. History of ED | Directorate of Enforcement